I find it a little ironic that the country's main electricity producer is inviting Bitcoin miners to take advantage and purchase its excess power capacity when 30% of the population still doesn't have access to electricity.
[1] Secondly, the producer is offering excess power which is generated from free underground heat and yet Kenya has expensive electricity cost. I don't know, I somehow find this invitation a little odd.
[1]
https://tradingeconomics.com/kenya/access-to-electricity-percent-of-population-wb-data.html30% do not have it due to distance.
here in the UK i like 20 miles from a power station. where by from the power station to my location there are 500,000 homes. meaning the cabling cost from my location to the power station is 500,000th of the price of the cable as we all pay a little bit in our bills to cover the costs of cabling, mainenance and upgrading.
however a tribal village of 30 people(10 homes) 120 miles from a power station automatically has a cost (if they managed to convince a company to cable it to them) of many times more than my costs.. which most power companies see no benefit/profit in investing in expensive cabling for such small communities especially when there are so many small communities. spread soo widely.
the costs to supply them all would never yield any ROI
and now you been schooled in why 30% are not supplied. and why those not close but within reach of a power plant are not cheap..
however if you are located right next to a power plant that also happens to have a city nearby to share the local supply cost.. then you can get it alot cheaper.
the more people sharing the cost. the more the over all cost comes down
Anyway, I'm not discrediting the profitability of the idea of the electricity producer. However, there must be a whole lot of other conditions which matter so much in the overall success or failure of this idea. The overall business environment of the country is going to be a big factor as well.
the business idea is simple.
power plants never build to only have capacity to supply its local population of that year. they plan 60 years ahead meaning 3 generations of population growth. (3x+ current demand)
instead of waiting 20 years for an increase in demand(residential growth). meaning only working at 33% capacity in first 20 years. 66% in 20-40 then near 100% in 60+ years.. they want to be able to work at 65-95% capacity right now from day one.
so that they can make more money right from day one.this requires either convincing residents to sell their property far away and move closer, or entice businesses/industry with large energy requirements to come closer, on a more temporal contract(no 50-100year leases).
bitcoin mining is actually a good business to entice, as they can haul their asics in trucks and set up in weeks. and in a few years if the demand is too much, be told to stop and those asics can be moved out of the area very easily. (compared to other industries)
and so while waiting 20 years for residential demand that power plant can offer that capacity to bitcoin miners on 5-20 year contracts. and if residential demand does pick up, then cut off the mining contract to divert the capacity back to residential. easily and cheaply without affecting local economy
..
think of it like this.
1 asic farm requiring 3kwh per asic. with 10,000 asics in one building, employing 20 people
that 'supply contract' is the equivalent of 60,000 residents (20,000 homes)
that 'supply contract' is the equivalent of 20 product distribution warehouses (2000 employee's)
so if residential demand was to grow and the power plant had to cut the mining contract. legally speaking and local economically speaking.. it only affects 1 company and 20 employees. so its an easy decision
alot easier then trying to convince 20 warehouses/companies to move in with a risk of their lease expiring in 5-20 years. and then making 2000 local population unemployed
convincing 1 asic company or 20 product manufacturers. is an easy job to convince one asic company.
plus in 20 years, it wont affect the local economy much to make only 20 people unemployed compared to 2000+ people, where the latter would be bad for the area